[Taxacom] Question about labelling types

[Stephen Thorpe]

Exactly Scott! Here is an example of how not to do it (also see my comment at the end of the linked page): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283155888_Checklist_and_type_designations_of_New_Zealand_Aleocharinae_Coleoptera_Staphylinidae

Cheers, Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 1/3/16, Scott Thomson <scott.thomson321 at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Question about labelling types
 To: "John Grehan" <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 Cc: "Karl Magnacca" <kmagnacca at wesleyan.edu>, "taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
 Received: Tuesday, 1 March, 2016, 12:57 PM
 
 I am curious here, other
 arguments aside. Is there a valid reason to set a
 lectotype? you cannot do it because you want to
 there needs to be a
 potential issue at hand.
 So what if they are syntypes, as long as they all
 represent the same species. I do not see a
 museum label saying holotype as
 an issue per
 se, I can see Stephens point that if you did feel the need
 to
 set a lectotype then the one labelled as
 holotype would be a reasonable
 choice, but
 first there must be a reason to do it.
 
 Cheers, Scott
 
 On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:53 PM, John Grehan
 <calabar.john at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 > I get the
 impression that there is no conflict other than how frequent
 one
 > or other situation might be. All
 other things being equal it might be
 >
 considered the best option to use a previously labeled
 specimen. Perhaps in
 > most cases all
 things are not equal, but whether nor not in most cases
 or
 > not does not matter. So I don't
 see any straw men from either point of
 >
 view.
 >
 > John
 Grehan
 >
 > On Mon, Feb
 29, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Karl Magnacca <kmagnacca at wesleyan.edu>
 > wrote:
 >
 > > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Stephen Thorpe
 wrote:
 > > > There is no
 "logical flaw" in what I said! A typical
 scenario
 > > > involves two or
 three syntypes all from the same locality, same sex
 > > > and same condition (i.e. all
 other things are equal). If one of
 > >
 > these has an (invalid) holotype label on it, then that
 one should be
 > > > designated as
 lectotype. Otherwise, it may cause confusion (and
 > > > museums typically treat anything
 with a holotype label on it as if
 > >
 > it were a valid primary type, someone may have already
 published on
 > > > it as if it were
 the valid primary type, and it is very bad practice
 > > > to remove labels). Why are
 people trying hard to resist this simple
 > > > piece of commonsense??
 > >
 > > Because
 *this* is a strawman.  What you're talking about is not
 a
 > > typical situation but an ideal
 one, where in fact there's no need
 >
 > (or even ability) to designate a lectotype at all. 
 Even if you have
 > > one misidentified
 specimen in the type series such that it requires
 > > a lectotype, 80+ year old specimens
 are almost never in equally good
 > >
 condition, usually not the same sex, and often not from the
 same
 > > locality.  You can't
 make a general rule from a very specific
 > > situation and then claim that the
 ones that are seen more frequently
 > >
 are the exceptions.
 > >
 > > Karl
 > >
 > >
 _______________________________________________
 > > Taxacom Mailing List
 > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may
 be searched at:
 > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 > >
 > > Channeling
 Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
 > >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > Taxacom Mailing List
 >
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at:
 > http://taxacom.markmail.org
 >
 > Channeling
 Intellectual Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.
 >
 
 
 
 -- 
 Scott
 Thomson
 Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de
 São Paulo
 Divisão de Vertebrados
 (Herpetologia)
 Avenida Nazaré, 481,
 Ipiranga
 04263-000, São Paulo, SP,
 Brasil
 http://www.carettochelys.com
 ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1279-2722
 Lattes: *http://lattes.cnpq.br/0323517916624728*
 <https://wwws.cnpq.br/cvlattesweb/PKG_MENU.menu?f_cod409F4BF37BFC4AD13FD58CDB7AA5FD#>
 Skype: Faendalimas
 Mobile
 Phone: +55 11 974 74 9095
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
 searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
 
 Channeling Intellectual
 Exuberance for 29 years in 2016.